Hodara v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections: Retroactive Clarification of Execution-Related Confidentiality Under Oklahoma’s Open Records Act
1. Introduction
In Hodara v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2025 OK 47, the Oklahoma Supreme Court addressed a collision between open government principles and legislative efforts to protect secrecy surrounding the State’s execution process.
The plaintiff, Fred Hodara, sought extensive records under the Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA) relating to lethal injection drugs and the State’s execution protocol. The defendant, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC), refused to disclose much of the requested material, invoking a statutory confidentiality provision, 22 O.S. § 1015(B), that shields the identity of persons and entities involved in executions.
While the litigation was pending, the Legislature amended § 1015(B) in 2024, expressly broadening and clarifying the scope of the confidentiality and directing that it be “broadly construed,” with explicit retroactive application to records already in existence. DOC then renewed its motion to dismiss based on the amended statute. The district court granted the motion; Hodara appealed.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the case and treated it as an accelerated appeal from a motion to dismiss under Rule 1.36. The central questions were:
- Did the 2024 amendment to § 1015(B) create a new, broader confidentiality privilege that destroys an existing cause of action under the ORA, in violation of Okla. Const. art. 5, § 52?
- May the amended statute be applied retroactively to a pending lawsuit and to records that predated the amendment?
- Does the confidentiality provision extend so far as to provide a “blanket” exemption from the ORA for all execution-related records?
The Court held that the 2024 amendment was constitutional, did not create a new privilege or destroy a previously available cause of action, and could be applied retroactively in this pending case. It also reaffirmed that the secrecy statute does not extend to the identity and dosage of execution drugs themselves, consistent with its earlier decision in Lockett v. Evans.
2. Summary of the Opinion
2.1 Procedural Posture
- In 2020, Hodara submitted broad ORA requests for:
- Drug inventories and logs;
- Drug bottle labels and packaging (concentration, lot number, expiration);
- Documents on manufacturers, distributors, compounders;
- Correspondence and records concerning acquisition, purchase, sale, and testing of lethal-injection drugs;
- Chain-of-custody materials; and
- Various correspondence related to execution drugs and protocol from 2015 forward.
- DOC initially claimed no responsive records, later produced some records (some heavily redacted) and a privilege log.
- Hodara sued for declaratory and injunctive relief under the ORA.
- DOC’s first motion to dismiss (under pre‑2024 § 1015(B)) was denied; both sides then moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied, citing factual disputes.
- While the case was pending, at the request of the Attorney General’s office, the Legislature amended § 1015(B), effective April 20, 2024.
- DOC filed a second motion to dismiss, now relying on the amended statute; the trial court granted the motion on October 4, 2024, holding that under the amended statute the plaintiff could prove no set of facts entitling him to ORA relief.
- Hodara appealed. Under Rule 1.36, the Supreme Court considered only the October 4, 2024 dismissal order—not earlier interlocutory rulings.
2.2 Core Holdings
The Supreme Court, per Vice Chief Justice Kuehn, held:- Section 1015(B) does not create a blanket secrecy rule over all execution-related records.
- The statute protects the “identity” of persons/entities involved in the execution process and those who produce or supply execution drugs, equipment, and medical supplies.
- It does not, and never did, make the identity or dosage of the drugs themselves secret; Lockett v. Evans remains controlling on this point.
- The 2024 amendment to § 1015(B) is a clarifying, not substantive, change.
- The amendment elaborates on what “identity” covers—i.e., any documents, records, photographs, or information that may directly or indirectly lead to identification.
- It instructs that the confidentiality and discovery exemption be “broadly construed” and explicitly assigns the DOC Director the role of determining which records qualify.
- These changes codify and clarify the preexisting scope of the statutory privilege; they do not create a new category of exempt information.
- The amendment validly applies retroactively to existing records and to this pending case.
- Because the amendment is interpretive/clarificatory and does not extinguish a substantive right or cause of action, retroactive application does not violate Okla. Const. art. 5, § 52.
- The explicit retroactivity clause (“shall apply to records existing prior to, on, or after the effective date”) is therefore constitutional.
- Hodara cannot state an ORA claim for records covered by § 1015(B).
- The ORA itself recognizes that specific state or federal statutes can create confidential privileges that override its general presumption of openness.
- Because § 1015(B) creates such a privilege, and because DOC already disclosed the drug names and dosages required under Lockett, there is no remaining legally cognizable ORA claim concerning the withheld materials.
- The trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed.
The Court also re-emphasized that its role is limited to assessing constitutionality and statutory meaning—not judging the wisdom or policy desirability of secrecy surrounding executions.
3. Detailed Analysis
3.1 Statutory and Constitutional Framework
3.1.1 The Oklahoma Open Records Act (ORA)
The ORA (51 O.S. §§ 24A.1 et seq.) is broadly pro‑transparency. Section 24A.2 sets the baseline policy:
“[T]o ensure and facilitate the public’s right of access to and review of government records…”
At the same time, that section expressly recognizes limitations:
- The right of access is subject to state or federal statutes that specifically create a confidential privilege.
- When an agency invokes such a statutory privilege to deny access, the agency bears the burden to show which records are covered.
So the ORA creates a general “right to know,” but allows the Legislature to carve out exceptions through specific confidentiality statutes. Section 1015(B) is such an exception.
3.1.2 The Execution Confidentiality Statute: 22 O.S. § 1015(B)
Two versions of § 1015(B) are central: the pre‑2024 version, and the amended 2024 version.
(a) Pre‑2024 Version (2011 language)
“The identity of all persons who participate in or administer the execution process and persons who supply the drugs, medical supplies or medical equipment for the execution